3 ms·

None of us were born with knowledge of quantum mechanics. Some outside force placed that information into your head by sitting you down in a classroom, and ince

None of us were born with knowledge of quantum mechanics. Some outside force placed that information into your head by sitting you down in a classroom, and incentivizing you enough to remain there under the vague threat of future poverty. Very few things get the privilege of becoming part of a school curriculum. And the way those ideas get there, looks a lot like marketing. I don't think anything I can say will change your mind. Often, a belief that things were better in the past is more of a personality trait or an emotional disposition motivated by external events rather than something rational. If you're so inclined though, I highly recommend using the Library of Congress website or Newspapers.com to read what mass communication was like 50-200 years ago. You'll be amazed at how little has changed: https://pessimists.co/telephone-archive/ https://pessimists.co/telephone-archive/ https://pessimists.co/radio-archive/ https://pessimists.co/radio-archive/

omnicognate 5y ago
Again with the equating marketing to communication, propagation of ideas and persuasion. What goes on in a classroom is not marketing, by any useful definition... Yet.
- pembrook 5y ago
  Any time you have limited attention, and more than one idea vying for that attention, the end result is marketing. Any argument you make that students should spend an hour learning about quantum mechanics instead of something else on the market of ideas (eg. finance, literature, history, etc.) is by definition an act of positioning. The curriculum of today is the result of marketing in the past. You just don't see it that way because you weren't around when those decisions were being made.
  - omnicognate 5y ago
    No, you're defining marketing in a way so broad as to render the term meaningless, as a way of avoiding answering the actual criticisms. An extreme example of this kind of argument would be "murder is doing stuff, here is an example of people doing stuff and it's fine, so murder is fine". This is fallacious (and, if done deliberately, dishonest) so I won't engage in that line of debate further.
    - pembrook 5y ago
      Conversely, I would say you’re defining marketing so narrowly that you’re actually just talking about advertising. But I agree, it sounds like we’re just arguing semantics at this point and have reached the logical end point of all internet debate

omnicognate 5y ago

Again with the equating marketing to communication, propagation of ideas and persuasion. What goes on in a classroom is not marketing, by any useful definition... Yet.

pembrook 5y ago
Any time you have limited attention, and more than one idea vying for that attention, the end result is marketing. Any argument you make that students should spend an hour learning about quantum mechanics instead of something else on the market of ideas (eg. finance, literature, history, etc.) is by definition an act of positioning. The curriculum of today is the result of marketing in the past. You just don't see it that way because you weren't around when those decisions were being made.
- omnicognate 5y ago
  No, you're defining marketing in a way so broad as to render the term meaningless, as a way of avoiding answering the actual criticisms. An extreme example of this kind of argument would be "murder is doing stuff, here is an example of people doing stuff and it's fine, so murder is fine". This is fallacious (and, if done deliberately, dishonest) so I won't engage in that line of debate further.
  - pembrook 5y ago
    Conversely, I would say you’re defining marketing so narrowly that you’re actually just talking about advertising. But I agree, it sounds like we’re just arguing semantics at this point and have reached the logical end point of all internet debate